The Protestant minority in Quebec in its political relations with the Roman Catholic majority [microform] : a letter addressed to Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt, K.C.M.G.

‘

|

| PROTESTANT MINORITY

t IN QUEBEC

IN ITS POLITICAL RELATIONS
iF

'
a

WITH THE

ROMAN CATHOLIC MAJORITY

—$__—_ —: — § <__-—_.___--

A LETTHR
ADDRESSED TO
SIR ALEXANDER TILLOCH GALT, K.C.M.G.
BY

THOMAS WHITE, Jr.

MONTREAL :
DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,

1876.

PRICE: 10 OEKNTS.
Copies Mailed on Receipt of Price by Post,

logs
x *¥

THE PROTESTANT MINORITY IN QUEBEC
IN ITS POLITICAL RELATIONS WITH

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAJORITY.

ee

Orrawa, 19th February, 1876.

Tur Hon. Sir A. T. GALT,

My Dear Sir ALEXANDER, —I have to thank
you for the courtesy which prompted you to send me
advance proof sheets of your letter, on the subject of
‘‘ Givil Liberty in Lower Canada”; and I am prompt-
ed to reply to it in the present form, partly for the
reason that the question is one which can be more
satisfactorily dealt with in this way, and also for the
reason that having been the immediate occasion of
the delivery by Mr. Huntington of his now cele-
brated speech at St. Andrews, I may, w chout any
charge of presumption, be permitted thus to deal with
the issues arising out of that speech, and to the dis-
cussion of which your letter is directed.

The speech itself at the time of its delivery certainly
did not seem likely to create the interest which has
since been provoked by it. ! arrived in the County
of Argenteuil late on the Tuesday night of the week
of nomination, and on the Wednesday attended a
meeting which had been arranged for me, in the
French section of the County, at which both political
parties were represented. At that meeting I was
compelled to listen to appeals against my candidature
based upon my supposed fanaticism and bigotry as a
Protestant. ‘The electors were told that I had just
been driven out of Montreal by the French Canadian
electors notwithstanding a large Protestant majority
in my favour, because I was intensely inimical to the

2

French Canadian race and the Catholic religion. They
were reminded that I held prominent rank in a
society condemned by the Church, and that I was on
this account unworthy of Roman Catholic support. I
learned that, while this description of attack was
being used among the French electors, in the Protes-
tant sections of the County, I was denounced as
priest-ridden, as the intimate personal ally and friend
of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal, and as a
member of a society of Lay Jesuits whose object was
to hand over the Protestants of the Province to the
tender mercies of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. The
electors were assured, ov. the authority of a gentleman
who professed to know, that my office in Montreal
literally swarmed with Roman Catholic priests, and
that, therefore, no sound Protestant could vote for
me.

The following day I had the pleasure of being met
by Mr. Huntington at a meeting at St. Andrews, In
the course of my speech, I complained of the tactics
which were being pursue in the county, in appealing
to the religious rather than the political sentiment of
the people, illustrating my complaint by the facts I
have just mentioned. And it was in xeply to this part
of my address, that Mr. Huntington made the speech
which has since caused so much discussion. At the
time it seemed nothing more than a clever attempt, in
an intensely Protestant, and hitherto Conservative
constituency, to secure an electoral triumph by rousing
the Protestant sentiment of the people against one,
against whom the Catholic sentiment had already been
so successfully raised in another place ; and those who
listened to it certainly attached no greater importance

3

toit. Itis evident, however, that it was intended to
inaugurate a new departure in the politics of the Pro-
vince. Mr. Huntington’s reply to me occupied an
hour in the delivery. It dealt with general questions
of public policy, and was a defence of the government
of which he is a member, against the charges on which
I had ventured to arraign them, That defence, cer-
tainly, possessed an interest beyond the meeting to
which it was addressed. And yet, although he was
accompanied by a reporter, not a word of the speech,
except the introductory passages which are now so
famous, was reported. That fact, with the letter you
have now given to the public, makes it evident, as I
have said, that a new departure in politics has been
resolved upon, and that a new ground of division, a
purely religious one, is to be urged upon the people
of the Province of Quebec. And this being the fact, I
hope you will permit me to examine the reasons which
prompt you to urge the “ disruption of our former
party alliances” and the union of Protestant-Conser-
yatives with those whom you describe as “the so-called
Liberal-Catholics.”

If the position of the Protestants in this Province,
is at this moment a hazardous one, as you almost
assert, there is no public man upon whom the respon-
sibility of that position rests more heavily than upon
yourself. When the federal union of the Provinces
took place, and I believe you have the honor of hav-
ing been among the earliest of our public men to urge
that union on the floor of Parliament, you were spe-
cially charged with the duty of protecting the inter-
ests for the future of the religious minority of the
Province. In the performance of that duty, as you

4

have more than once stated, you had the hearty sym-
pathy and support of .he French Canadian Conserva-
tives. In what way have the guarantees which you
then secured been infringed upon or even threatened ?
No change has taken place, or been attempted, in the
basis of representation then provided. No suggestion
even has been made that our educational privileges
should be in any way lessened or impaired. The
legislation of last session at Quebec, on the School
question, to which you refer as “ not re-assuring,”
ought, so far as the Protestant minority are concerned,
to have the directly opposite impression upon our
minds, It is true that in so far as it affected Catholic
education, it placed it “wholly under the control of
the Clergy.” I regret, as much as you can possibly
do, that this should have been done, looking at the
question from my Protestant stand-point. But it
should surely not be forgotten that that Act passed
the Legislature without challenge from either side of
the House, and that it affords no ground for a “dis-
ruption of our former party alliances,” seeing that
both parties among the Roman Catholic members
gave to it their full assent. But what is important
for us to know is that Protestant education was placed
as completely under Protestant control as was Roman
Catholic education placed under Roman Catholic con-
trol. I think Iam right in saying that every sug-
gestion offered by the Protestant members of the
Council of Public Instruction was embodied in the
Act. That is a fact to which I venture to think you
cannot find a parallel in the educational legislation of
any other country in the world. Thus secured in our
own fullest rights of control over the education of

rr arn gy ne nee a Cn NS ERI a

|

5 »

our children, it is certainly not reasonable that we
should demand the right to interfere with the wishes
of the religious majority, especially when no repre-
sentative of that religious majority in Parliament asks
our interference, and no Catholic minority out of
Parliament protests against the legislation.

You admit that at the date of Confederation
“appearances justified great confidence in the liberal
“and generous action of the French Canadian major-
“ity; that politically they had been for many years
“under the leadership of men of known and tried
“ liberality.’ And you give the names of Lafontaine,
Morin, and Cartier, as “names synonymous witb
“upright dealing and evenhanded justice, irrespective
“of race or religion.” Lafontaine, Morin and Cartier,
owed the large following among the Roman Catholics
that they enjoyed, to the hearty svmpathy of the
Catholic clergy. They were as violently, nay, more
violently attacked, because of the alliance with the
church, than are the Conservatives of to-day. It
is surely not necessary to refer to the writings in
LT’ Avenir and Le Pays in order to establish this fact.
It is surely not necessary to refer to the great Protest-
ant agitation under the leadership of Mr. Brown in
Upper Canada, in order to prove it. The subserviency
of those statesmen to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy
was the daily theme of the articles in a portion of the
Liberal press during those years.* It is only necessary

* “ Are we to suffer one-half of this fair portion of our country to meet the
fate of Spain, of Italy, of Romish Switzerland and Germany—of every country
where Popery has obtained undisputed mastery, where the lands have fallen
under the control of the monastic establishments, where the priest has con-
trolled education and every public enterprise, through the wealth which has
been thrown into their hand3 ?"—Globe, October, 1852.

“The Reserve question is an important issue—it is a great branch of the

i
i
i
i
i
f

« 6

to refer to Mr. Huntington’s speech, for which you
invoke for him the thanks of the country, to prove it.
That speech was a condemnation of twenty years of
British Tory alliance with the ultramontane party,
and these twenty years include the whole period of
Sir George Cartier’s official life. For ten of them,
at least, you were yourself responsible, and your own
testimony is sufficient to show how cruelly unjust was
the charge that Protestant interests had in any way
suffered by that alliance, for condemning which you

a a

great issue of Church and State connection ; but we are free to confess that
infinitely greater in our view is the question, whether one-half of this
magnificent country shall be surrendered to Reman priest-craft—whether
Roman Catholic institutions, which have ground to the dust every country
in which they have found a resting place, shall be fostered and extended by
public aid ?—whether by the treachery of place-hunting Protestants, be they
Wig or Tory, the priests of Rome are to hold the balance of power in the
united Province, and continue to mould the institutions of both sections to
suit thei1 purposes.”—Globe, March, 1854.

« Who then crouched before him and simpered at his nod? Not Canadians
worthy of their name and privileges, but a handfull of priest-ridden politicians,
and the unlettered peasants who dwaddle on their exhausted lands on the
banks of the St. Lawrence. As for the intimate relations with Rome the
writer (La Patrie) is jubilant about them. ‘Intimate relations’ with Rome
forsooth! Already our relations have been so intimate that, for two centuries
the Lower Canadian portion of the population have scarcely advanced one
iota; so intimate that the same population leaves a dead weight on our
present prosperity; so INTIMATE THAT ITS PRIESTS SWAY OUR PALTRY POLI-
TICIANS.”—The Globe, December 1855, on the visit of Pope's Nuncio, Archbishop
Bedine.

“These thoughts are well worthy the serious consideration of the honest
members of the Orange body. Thata large majority of that body are firm
Protestants, we never doubt ; but that the whole body, through the treachery
of a few unprincipled leaders, are now aiding and abetting that very system
to which they profess to be opposed, is as manifest as that the Ministry hold
their offices by and with the consent of the Romish party of Lower Canada AND DARE
NOT REFUSE TO DO THEIR BIDDING.—Globe, March 12, 1857,

In the Globe, August 20, 1857, the French Canadian Conservatives under
Mr. George E. Cartier, were described as “ Tue Porr’s Brass Bann.”

“ Here is the issue presented to the people of Toronto! Mr. Bowes gets the
Roman Catholic votes, and they will elect him! Protestants of Toronto, will
you stand idly b. and see this done? Will you be ruled by the petticoated
gentlemen of Church street, or will you not unite on two men who can beat
Bowes, and put them in?’—Globe, December, 1857.

“It is George Brown that Priest Bruyere hates; it is he that the priest
wished to drive from the polls. And wil. Protestants of Toronto endure to
be represented by the nominee cf a foreign priest ?”’—Jbid.

Oe OOO OO ae

7

mow ask us to record public thanks to the Postmaster
‘General.

Where is the evidence of any change of policy to-
wards the religious minority ? What is there, either
in the policy of the government of Quebec, or of the
French Conservatives at Ottawa, to justify your im-
plied charge that their condnct has been less “ liberal
and generous” or that they are less disposed towards
“upright dealing and even-handed justice, irrespective
“of race and religion ?” Sir George fought the liberals
with certainly as much vigour and earnestness as either
Mr. Massou or Mr. DeBoucherville; and he had the
Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church as heartily with
him in the fight, down te the last great struggle in
which those liberals showed how littleclaim they have
to the “disruption of our former party-alliances” in
their interest, by, as you describe it, “ the history of
the Programme” and “ their union with Bishop Bour-
get” to defeat him.* But that sympathy of the Church

* Just before the general elcctions of 1867, all the Roman Catholic bishops
of the Dominion issued pastoral letters, or other letters which were intended
to be used as episcopal utterances, in favor of the Government of which Sir
Alexander Galt was a member. The Liberals had bitterly opposed Confede-
ration, and were resolved, as shown by the result ~* a formal meeting held by
them, to test the question at the polls with their ,onservative opponents by
electing, if they could, anti-Confederationists. I was in this crisis that the
pastoral letters were issued. It is only necessary to take extracts from those
issued by the bishops in Lower Canada. The pastoral of the Archbishop of
Quebec, wnich was crdered to be read and published in all the churches on
the first Sunday or festival after its reception, had the following :—

‘Tf, during the period ot more than one century since our country was ceded
to Great Britain, the form of Government has been at various times modified,
we must remember that the principle of authority varies not, but is ever the same.
Authority is necessary to the maintenance of human society, and experience
proves to us now more than ever what misfortunes befall the nations who
-dare reject it, : ¢ = ¢ * * . .

“Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, the federal union just formed ema-
nates from lawful authority ; you will consider it as your law, and you will
therefore submit to the will of God, acc nting it with sincerity. It is, moreover, your
interest, as well as a duty of conscience to do 60, in order to promote the general
prosperity and individual welfare. Shortly you will be called upon to select

8

with Lafontaine, forin and Cartier, never prompted
them to interfere with the righis of the religious mi-
nority, and never prevented them from according to
that minority every demand they ever made upon
them. In what way has this policy been changed by.
their successors? If 1 mistake not, you have yourself
testified to the liberality of Mr. DeBoucherville in re-
lation to his offer to make provision for a Lunatic
Asylum for Protestants, in ohedience to the request of

those members who, in the federal asin the local Parliament, will have to:
make the new constitution work its way. You wil’, therefore, forbear giving
your vote to those who might be inclined to oppose ii, or to counteract its operation,
but you will vote for persons well known as being desirous of promoting the.
greater good of the country. * * What should reassure us,

dearly beloved brethren, is that the new gods of Government just given has
been prepared with care by men well known for their patriotism as for the
services they have rendered to their country.”

The Bishop of Rimouski in his pastoral letter said: “In sosolemna moment
the faithful naturally turn to the tirst pastors of the Church for advice and:
instruction, We therefore believe that we are fulfilling one of the sacred duties of
our calling in offering you advice which, as you have always done you will receive
with respect and joy * * * * In the approaching elections you will cunsider it:
an obligation ¢f conscience to select with care those candidates who are to
represent you, whether in the House of Commons or in the Local Legislature

* * # They should pledge themselves to you that they will cordially and frankly
assist in working out the new order of things; AND TO SECOND THE. EFFORTS OF THOSE
WHO WILL BE CALLED UPON TO INAUGURATE THY GOVERNMENTS OF THE NEW DOMINYON.”

The Bishop of St. Hyacinthe, in his pastoral letter said :— We have lately.
had occasion to assert from the vulpit of our cathedral, a right which we dare not
surrender; anu which, with tae grace of God, we shall fulfil as all our other
duties ; that is, the right to instrust and direct you, IN OUR CAPACITY AS, YOU
BISHOP, in all matters that relate to social order, as well as those «hat appertain
to religion * * * Let us have noneof those unfortunate - ivisions which
have been so productive of evil. None of those men who are only capable of
embarrasing the progress of the country. We require men of sincerity and loyalty
—-men whose intellert has been developed by a sound education ; and above
all, men who have evinced their liberality and attachment to religion and its
priacipies ; men without passion, wo well understand our present political
situation, and who will go to Parliament with a sincere and earnest disposition
to give our new constitution a hearty support by speech, influence and practical
work.”

In order to give point to these extracts, and to.show how strougly they
were in favor of the Government of the day, of which Sir George Cartier and
Sir Alexander Galt were both members, the following resolution adopted’ by
the Reform Association of Lower Canada at the time will show :—* That, in
view of the approaching general eleccion an Association be organized
in each County or electoral college, composed of all those who are opposed to
confederation, and that this Association have a committee in. each Parish of
the Country.”

9

a meeting of Protestants, held in Montreal, I am
aware that this offer has been cited as evidence of a
deep seated conspiracy on the part of the Local Gov-
ernment to destroy Protestantism and Protestant
rights in the Province of Quebec. But I do not suppose
that you will admit either toe justice or the wisdom
of such a charge.

You refer to and: quote the Pastoral letter of Mon-
seigneur Bourget as a reason for the “ disruption of our
former party alliances.” With that letier I have as
little sympathy as you can possibly have. I venture
to say that it meets with no sympathy from Protes-
tants of either political party. But there is this to be
said, that it is simply a strong illustration of the
fundamental differences between the two systems of
religious faith. Roman Catholicism denies to its mem-
bership the right of private judgment. Protestantism
on the contrary is based upon that right as its leading
and ¢Cistinctive characteristic. Bishop Bourget is
dealing with aclass, who be.ag Catholics, yet deny the
absolute authority of the Church in matters of faith
and morals, and these he condemns. That condemna-
tion to Protestants would be simply intolerable ; but
it is neither intended to, nor does it, apply to us. In
the recent debate in Parliament, from his own side of
the House, Mr. Huntington’s speech was condemned
by every gentleman who spoke.* 1n the Catholic press

* As to the second question—whether I approve of the speech, I have
simply to say that I do not approve of anything that has a tendency to bring
religion into public discussions in the politics of this country. * * * I caw
only therefore express my regret at the remarks of my hon. friend, Mr.
Huntington, and the tone and interpretation given them by many. So far as
that: interpretation and tone are concerned, { have no sympathy with it.”
—Hon. Mr, Mackenzic, debate on the address,

“ The Hon. Postmaster General is evidently mistaken as to the meaning
attributed to certain expressions used in this country, ‘The words Ultramon-

10

-of the liberal party, in the other Provinces, the same
condemnation has been pronounced. In that portion
of the Catholic liberal press of this Province, which,

while condemning the unwisdom of that speech, has
yet excused it, the excuse has been based upon the
assumption that Mr. Huntington did not mean to
assert any difference of opinion among Roman Catho-
lics, as to the full and complete authority of their

Church in matters of faith and morals, Mr. Power,

in his letter to the Postmaster General, expressly
denies any such difference of opinion among his

co-religionists, and Mr. Huntington in his reply pro-

tests against any interpretation being put upon his
speech as would imply that he asserted such a dif-
ference. Under these circumstances I cannot but
think the publication by you, at this time, uf your
correspondence with Mr. Robertson is unfortunate.
Your long experience in public life; your intimate
acquaintanceship with the public men, especially of

tanism and Gallicanism, which belong to another epoch, have no longer their
raison d'etre, since Catholics, without exception, recognize the sovereign
authority of Rome in matters of religion. But Catholic Inberalism, which is
more modern, at least in name, is the affirmation of the right of discussion in
the Church. But this doctrine, I, as a Catholic, ought to repudiate ; and I do
repudiate it with «'l the solemnity and all the energy of which I aim
capable.” — Hon. Mr. Cauchon, present leader of the French Liberals, in the debate
on the Address.

“ Tsay at once «3 an Irishman and a Catholic, that I do not concur in the
remarks of the Hon. Postmaster-General, and I am obliged to say that it was
@ most unfortunate speech.—Mr. Devlin, in the debate on the address.

“« My hon, friend from Terrebonne, has attacked the speech delivered in the
‘county of Axgenteuil by the Hon. the Post Master-General, which has become
80 famous during the past few weeks ; and he regards this speech as inoppor-
tune, imprudent and dangerous; and J] must say that I share tuis opinion with
my honourable friend, —Mr. Bechard, in the debate on the address,

“T felt that this speech was a deadly blow at the existence and the very
‘life of the party which I have spent my whole political life in endeavouring
to build up and sustain according to the measure of my humble ability.
**** T have attained substantially the object I had in view; that the
speech was condemned by the First Minister, and is condemned by all the
supporters of the Government from the Province of Quebec.” — Hon. Mr.
Folton, delate on the address,

‘i . .

Naess nmr hil RA a

}

11

the Province of Quebec, must give great weight to
any statement you make as to their opinions, and when

you describe the liberals of the Province, with whom

you now invite Protestant Conservative alliance, as
that “section of the Roman Catholic party who do
« not accept the extreme views enunciated at Rome,”
you simply declare them to be non-Catholics according
to the rule which, in the recent discussions, they have
all claimed as binding, and you justify, if anything
can justify it, the cone of Bishop Bourget’s pastoral
towards them.

By your silence at the last elections, after the
assurances of Mr. Robertson’s letter which you admit
were “distinct enough as regards the Protestants,”
you admitted that there was no ground for the dis-
ruption of former party “ alliances” at that time. I

‘cannot but think it fortunate that you came tv this

conclusion. There can be no doubt that it would be
a calamity, if in the Province of Quebec, the Catholic
majority became so united as to practically exclude
the Catholic minority from any share in the adminis-
tration of public affairs. However gratifying such a
condition of things might be from the stand point of
mere party advantage, in the higher interests of the
state it would be simply deplorable. And yet there

can be little doubt that badly as that minority were

beaten at the polls at the last election, they would
have stood a fair chance of being literally swept out
of Parliamentury existence, had one so intimate with
them as you are, on the eve of the battle, called for
Protestant union in their behalf on the ground that
they were a“ section of the Roman Catholic party who
“do not accept the extreme views enunciated at Rome.”

12

At the time, they expressly repudiated such a posi-
tion, and a Protestant manifesto, issued in their favour
and based upon the supposed necessity of protecting
them from their own church, must have proved a
fatal blow to them.

It is no less a fatal blow to-day, and although it
may be said that, as a Conservative, I should not com-
plain of this, I do complain of it as certain to increase
the power of the Roman Catholic Church in the
ordinary civil and political administration of this
Province, and to hard over the management of its
affairs more exclusively to the Catholic majority. If
it be true as you suggest, “that a deep laid plan
“ exists for the complete subjugation of Lower Canada
“to ecclesiastical rule, with the view of extending
“ the same baneful influence, hereafter, to the whole
‘* Dominion,” I can imagine no means more likely to
aid this design, at least so far as the Province of
Quebec is concerned, than the declaration that there
isa minority among Roman Catholics who do not
accept the doctrines of Rome, and a call to union
among Protestants to aid them in their crusade against
the authority of their own Church.

So far as the records of the legislation of the Pro-
vince since Confederation enable us to judge, there is
no such difference between the parties as you describe,
and, therefore, no such difference as justifies you in
calling for the “disruption of former political alliances”
in the Province of Quebec. I have studied this sub-
ject from this point of view with some care, and I
venture to assert that you can find no single measure
affecting the Roman Catholic Church, or in which that
Church could be supposed to have even a remote inte-

}

iP NER lego

PR LE

13

rest, upon which there has been a division in the
Legislature. There have been measures whose pas-
sage I, for one, deeply regretted. There have been
some in which I stood alone among the English jour-
nalists of this Province in condemning at the time,
and my condemnation of which has since been held
by so-called liberal French journals as sufficient to
Justify my exclusion from Parliament. But. there
has beer no division among the Roman Catholic mem-
bers of the House. Within the last half dozen years
the so-called Liberal party have been more submissive
in their attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church,
and more bold in their claim for the support of that
Church, than any political party hitherto existing in
Canada. The formation of the Parti National was
an act of submission to the Church such as no other
party has ever exhibited. Its single design was to
present a new party to the country, free from the
odium which attached to the Rouges, and accepting to
the full “the extreme views enunciated at Rome.” Their )
submission to the Programme of 1871, and “ their
“union with Bishop Bourget to defeat Sir George
“ Cartier,” you acknowledge in your pamphlet. In
the elections of 1872, while their allies in Upper
Canada were appealing to the Protestants in the
name of vengeance upon the murderers of Scott, they
appealed in this Province to the Catholic sentiment
against the Government, because Riel and his associates
had not been amnestied. Even on the subject of
the new educational bill, which you condemn so
strongly, you will remember that that measure, or
‘one resembling it, except in this that it placed the
power in educational matters more completely under

ts in ncaa Uimebi2

irae ete carga

14

the control of the church, was submitted to the legis--

lature by Mr. Ouimet, when he was first minister,
and one of the charges made against the Conserva-
tives by the liberal press, was that they had failed to
pass it. At the recent elections for the local legisla-

ture, Mr. Joly in his speech at the farnous meeting of

the chieftains at St. Croix, gave in what can only be
regarded as complete submission to the “extreme
views enunciated at Rome,” emphasizing the sub-
mission by making it the prominent declaration in
his statement of the views and intentions of his
party.* And during the last session of the legisla-
ture, simultaneously with the accession of Mr.
Cauchon to the leadership of the liberals of the
Province, the party met in Quebec, and formally de-
posed Mr. Joly from the leadership in the legislature,
on the sole ground, there is too much reason to believe,
that he was a Protestant. Is that a record which
entitles you to ask, for “the disruption of former
party alliances’ and the union of Protestant Couser-
vatives, in their character as Protestants, with the
Liberals of this Province ?

Any one reading your pamphlet would be inclined
to infer that the influence of the Church upon the po-

*T maintain that no difference exists at the bottom, in the Province of
Quebec, between its people. * * * It is not as itis in France, which is
stained with the blood of the Rouge party ; we have really no Rouges in this
sense; and in the name of the Liberal party in the Province of Quepec, for
whom I have a right to speak to-day—for I am its leader—I repulse with in-
dignation these accusations made against us; and I say that it is cowardly to
make them. * * *+ We are made responsible for writings of twenty years
ago, and this is the responsibility which I deny. I am the leader of the Lib-
eral party, and speaking rightfully as such, I repudiate all that is said in the
name of the party which could wound the heart of a Krench Canadian, or ot
any otherman, * * * Itis unjust to make the party responsible for what
members of the party wrote twenty years avo, or twenty days ago, or twenty
hours ago in the newspapers,’—Mr, Joly’s speech at St.. Croix.

an wi hat iba,

Bite Liha ect ntl ed anit

Pt
i
i
4
5
=
‘
a

15

litics of the Province, was preventing thi. represen-
tation of the Liberals in Parliament. You can
hardly, however, forget that the Province has, since
the coalition of 1854, been conservative. During
nearly the last quarter of a century, the Liberals
have never been as strong in Parliament as they are:
to-day. During the years in which you held a high
position in the Government of Canada, they never:
were so strongly represented. Had they been, the
party with which you acted could not have retained
office. I submit this fact as an evidence that, by the
only test which can be applied to a subject of this
kind, there is no greater ground for urging Protestant
support to the Catholic minority at this time, than
there has been at any time during the last quarter of a
century. Indeed, during the earlier part of that pe-
riod, there was much greater ground, for there was in
those days a Catholic minority which could, by its
public utterances, be described as that “ section of the.
“‘ Roman Catholic party who de not accept the extreme
“view enunciated at Rome.’ The union which
you urge to-day was urged with equal vehemence by
Protestant Liberals in the Province of Quebec, during
all the years that you were in the Government; and
it was urged with much greater vehemence by the
Liberals of Ontario, the writings of some of whom,
in their apparent dread of that “ complete subjugation
of the country to ecclesiastical rule,” bear a striking
resemblance to the views which you have now given
to the public.

I am unwilling even by suggestion to assume that
your pamphlet has been issued in the interests of a
political party, with which, although you acted. with.

16

it, against Sir George Cartier, to whose liberality you
now bear so warm and so justly merited a testimony,
during the later years of your Parliamentary life, you
have not hitherto been supposed to have much sym-
pathy. Yet it is impossible to avoid the feeling that
there is at least some significance in the time and the
occasion of this new departure. Two years of official
life have done much to discredit the party now in
office in Canada. ‘The evidences of this are to be
found not only in Quebec but in Ontario as well. The
‘¢ Conservative reaction ” of which so much has been
said lately, has been quite as apparent in Ontario as
in Quebec. It can hardly in the former Province be
attributed to the undue interference of the clergy in
political contests. And there is no reason for suppos-
ing that to that influence it is alone due in the Pro-
vince of Quebec.* Your own observation in Montreal,
must have convinced you that it is due to an intelli-
gent appreciation of the failure of the gentlemen now
in office, to meet the expectations which the public,
on their own professions, had formed of them. It is
certainly a little remarkable that at a moment when,
not in one Province alone, but throughout the entire
Dominion, there is a growing change of sentiment
against this Government, arising out of their political

*“ As a Conservative, and as an Ultramontane,—or, as I am called by the
hon. gentleman on the other side of the House from the Province of Quebec,
as the leader of the Ultramontanes, I say that the Conservatives of the
Province of Quebec—and I speak advisedly—are ready to give to the clergy
of the Province, in religious questions, that submission and that confidence
which according to our creed we are obliged to give to them; and regarding
questions relating to the material progress of the country, and the political
affairs of the country, we are ready, and shall always be ready, to give to the
opinions of these gentlemen that respect to which they are entitled, owing to
their high intelligence, their great virtue, and their disinterestedness ; but we

are not ready to give any more.”—Jfr. Masson's speech on the address, 11th
February, 1876.

17
di action, an attempt should be made to arrest that
ere | current of sentiment by appeals to the religious feel-
Koes ings of the people. With all respect for the high
oe position which you occupy in the public mind, I
ea venture to think that the Protestant Conservatives
Fejal | of Quebec will require some greatem evidence that
aaie, their rights are in aang. , than your manifesto pre-
es sents, before they will consent to close their eyes to

The the political issues which divide political parties, in

‘sben the interests of that one of those parties with which
ou they have no volitical sympathy.

oe be | The Protestant minority in the Province of Quebec
ry in : have had no reason up to this time to doubt the liber-
bi | ality and fairness of the majority in all matters affect-
‘Po. | ing their interests. The guarantees which you secured
real, for them at the time of Confederation remain to this
telli- | day intact. No suggestion has ever been made looking
now | to their abrogation. No request made by Protestants
iblic, | has ever been refused. A mere handful in the Legis-
It is : lature, although nearly three times as many as, by
rhen, : the strict division of Roman Catholic and Protestant,
ntire they could secure, they had the most absolute and en-
ment tire control over every interest specially belonging to
‘tical them and subject to the action of the Legislature.
area Their position certainly cannot be benefitted by any
by the attempt at political organization based upon religious
pene opinions such as you suggest. With the family quar-
clergy rels of the majority, they have nothing to do, and their
prin best interest will be secured by preserving that position
‘to the of neutrality which has hitherto marked their conduct.
er dos The large divisions among the Roman Catholic popu-
8, 11th : lation are to them proof enough that political activity

is as great among that population as among Protes-
5)

«a

18

tants. If indeed there was a minority of the Roman
Catholics, struggling manfully for some principle— say
for the complete separation of church and state in the
Province, against the majority, and if they appealed
to Protestants to support them in their struggle, I
can quite understand that the appeal would be a dif-
ficult one to resist. But there is no such party. The
liberals with whom you invite an alliance have never
presented since confederation, any issue which enti-
tled them to our support because of it. And if it be
urged that at least they are opposed to the interfer-
ence of the clergy in politics, I answer that their
opposition is, by your own admission, insincere, that
they have shown themselves quite ready to reap the
benefit of such interference, and that the interference
of the clergy is only condemned by them, when it is
exercised in the interest of their opponents.

The time may come in the Province of Quebec,
although I venture to predict that if it should ever
come it will not, judging by the past, be during the
reign of the Conservative party, when Protestant
interests may be put in jeopardy. If that day ever
comes, I am sure that it will not be necessary for you
to “once more enter the arena of political strife to
“ protect those interests” which you are “ so respon-
“ sible for creating.” The Protestants of this Province
will in such an event be found to be a unit, and,
having the constitutional safeguards which you pro-
vided in the Act of Confederation at their backs, will
have no difficulty in maintaining the rights thus
accorded to them. But the suggestion of such a
coming struggle, above all the most unhappy sugges-
tion that the struggle may assume the character

19

of “a physical contest,” is utterly unwar-
ranted in the face of the history of the past,
to which you yourself make such generous
reference. The position of the Protestant minor-
ity in Quebec is one surrounded by some difficulty ;
but, as yet, there is nothing to indicate that it is one
of danger. Their true interest, I venture to think,
is to keep a strict watchfulness over their own rights,
to be ever ready to maintain them, if they should be
attacked, and to precerve towards the religious major-
ity a position of absolute neutrality, in so far as the
religious disputes of that majority are concerned.
They should observe this course in the interest of good
government. If the Roman Catholic Church is intol-
erant of dissent among its own membership from any of
its pretensions however extreme and to our minds
presumptuous, every appeal such as that addressed by
you can but increase the influence of those preten-
sions and render more powerless any resistance to
them. With an abstinence from interference in those
disputes, and continuing our alliances on political
grounds alone, the Protestants of the Province will
best maintain their own rights, and most certainly
minister to the best interests of the state.

{ am, Sir Alexander,

Yours very truly,

THOS. WHITE, Jr.